Anonymous wrote:

What many of us wish for, is a small, extremely selective gifted program that takes only those kids with extremely high IQs - not the run-of-the-mill good students found in abundance in FxCo. A gifted program should be for kids who can't learn adequately in a regular classroom. That was the original intent of GT, but AAP has strayed so far that it's now just slightly more advanced work - nothing that most kids couldn't do, including those in Gen Ed.

There's not a day goes by that this sentiment is not posted again on these boards to same effect. Plenty of kids in AAP you likely would not regard as gifted also can't learn adequately in a Gen Ed classroom because they are too advanced or move through material too fast. That's one reason they get placed in AAP. It's a system that works for many. Rather than trying to send the system backwards, work toward getting kids who can't even learn in AAP into the special ed wing of your school. You don't need to change AAP to do that.

You are absolutely correct and this is how the public school board thinks and decides as well.

But then there are these Bitch & Brag parents whose brains are so narrow that they cannot comprehend how the public school system works. Idiots! They bitch that the program should not include that many gifted kids but their precious child, and they brag that their kid has never prepped. Liars! And if by chance their get admitted, they continue to gripe that the curriculum is too demanding and competitive. Whiners!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people sometimes get a little bogged down by the fact that the name of the program was changed from GT to AAP around 2008. The program itself didn't change.

It's like when we got a new principal at our high school, and he changed "lunch" to "nutrition break," and "library" to "Informations Materials Center."

You clearly didn't have a child in what was then GT, and haven't been following the steady expansion and decline of the program's quality.

I am a different poster and I did have a child in the old GT program. The cut off for his year was a 131; it tends to toggle up and down between 130 and 134. I don't see more kids getting in than before. My DCs' attended a school where most of the parents had graduate degrees and about one third of his class was identified. Today, about one third of the class is identified - there are of course variations for year to year. The only real blip year was the year when they moved the CogAt to be a slightly different version than the national test. That was a balloon year. What I have seen is a transition of more ES schools' parent populations becoming more like ours and they have seen a steady increase in identification. The changes in curriculum are directly attributable to the SOLs. I think people tend to look at the past with Rose tinted glasses and assume things were better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's because there are so many parents who feel this way and who are tired of the AAP status quo. A lot of us are beginning to wake up to what a poorly designed system AAP is.

What's a well-designed G&T system?

NP. The key is to build up GE at the same time that AAP is decreased in size. GE curriculum might address up through Superior intellect. Very Superior and Profound would be in a separate group. *I know I'm blending different IQ rankings, but I'm just generalizing here.

Current benchmark score (132 or thereabouts) is basically two standard deviations above the [national] mean. That's a lot. You want it to be three or more?

Different poster, but I don't think scores alone should be the benchmark. I think there should be a broader assessment of which children truly are not functioning well in the standard classroom environment, and identification of the particular areas where that's the case (since truly gifted people still tend not to be gifted in all areas, they have particular "gifts") so that the kids have a curriculum that's tailored to their form of giftedness.

Anonymous wrote:The average IQ in Fairfax County is a bit higher than the average IQ nationally. The area is full of educated professionals, our SAT scores (a good proxy for IQ) are higher than average, etc.

So it's not surprising that the gifted population here should be higher than 2%. 17% actually sounds about right.

Besides which, AAP is Fairfax County's implementation of the VA state regulations on gifted education, so it is a gifted program.

To those who say it's not, please name a "real" gifted program. Have you seen what other counties do? One hour pullouts once a week, for brainteaser worksheets? If AAP is not a real gifted program, it's the closest thing by a long way to one in this area if not the country.

The neighboring county to FFX doesn't just have pull out services. The gifted program in MCPS has separate centers and services the top 2-3%. And as defined by some studies, the gifted population is the top 2 to 3%.

Most of the counties that have pull out services are those that don't have the funds or the district is too small to justify a separate center. I used to live in such a county.

Anonymous wrote:The average IQ in Fairfax County is a bit higher than the average IQ nationally. The area is full of educated professionals, our SAT scores (a good proxy for IQ) are higher than average, etc.

So it's not surprising that the gifted population here should be higher than 2%. 17% actually sounds about right.

Besides which, AAP is Fairfax County's implementation of the VA state regulations on gifted education, so it is a gifted program.

To those who say it's not, please name a "real" gifted program. Have you seen what other counties do? One hour pullouts once a week, for brainteaser worksheets? If AAP is not a real gifted program, it's the closest thing by a long way to one in this area if not the country.

THIS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people sometimes get a little bogged down by the fact that the name of the program was changed from GT to AAP around 2008. The program itself didn't change.

It's like when we got a new principal at our high school, and he changed "lunch" to "nutrition break," and "library" to "Informations Materials Center."

You clearly didn't have a child in what was then GT, and haven't been following the steady expansion and decline of the program's quality.

Hey everybody, we have an insider! Surely PP will follow up with a detailed, year by year, county-wide analysis with examples.

Anonymous wrote:I think people sometimes get a little bogged down by the fact that the name of the program was changed from GT to AAP around 2008. The program itself didn't change.

It's like when we got a new principal at our high school, and he changed "lunch" to "nutrition break," and "library" to "Informations Materials Center."

You clearly didn't have a child in what was then GT, and haven't been following the steady expansion and decline of the program's quality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's because there are so many parents who feel this way and who are tired of the AAP status quo. A lot of us are beginning to wake up to what a poorly designed system AAP is.

What's a well-designed G&T system?

NP. The key is to build up GE at the same time that AAP is decreased in size. GE curriculum might address up through Superior intellect. Very Superior and Profound would be in a separate group. *I know I'm blending different IQ rankings, but I'm just generalizing here.

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's because there are so many parents who feel this way and who are tired of the AAP status quo. A lot of us are beginning to wake up to what a poorly designed system AAP is.

What's a well-designed G&T system?

One in which the kids are all highly gifted, for starters.

Anonymous wrote:Can those of you who keep saying that on this board explain this to me?
Are you the parents of the kids with really high IQs?
What is your child not getting in the AAP program?
What should your child be getting in a gifted program?

Thank you!

Here is the problem: what is gifted? We use IQ of 2 standard deviations above mean to define that; that is about 130-132. But, measuring giftedness / IQ is not an exact science, particularly with younger kids. Add on top of it, that FCPS can not afford to give every student an IQ test, so they use different ability tests as a proxy. These tests can be gamed by practicing for the specific test; probably a 15-30 point increase in the middle scores.

Add to that FCPS is above normal IQ -- the median achievement (SAT scores) show that the average kid is about 1/2 standard deviation smarter than the general population.

So, under the best of circumstances, FCPS would put 5-8% in gifted program. Because of uncertainty in the testing, the numbers are twice, about 10-16%. And prepping further skews it. But, I think prepping won't help a 80 IQ get more than 90 or so. But 110 can get to 125-130.

Prepping is primarily an issue in certain immigrant communities where, at home, it is the norm.

Put these together, and AAP is the a program for potentially gifted students.

I think people sometimes get a little bogged down by the fact that the name of the program was changed from GT to AAP around 2008. The program itself didn't change.

It's like when we got a new principal at our high school, and he changed "lunch" to "nutrition break," and "library" to "Informations Materials Center."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's because there are so many parents who feel this way and who are tired of the AAP status quo. A lot of us are beginning to wake up to what a poorly designed system AAP is.

What's a well-designed G&T system?

We have had kids in gifted education in four states (west coast, midwest, mid atlantic and south), with kids who are highly gifted (upper 99% range) and very bright (mid 90s, just outside of LIV, L3 + advanced math)

Fairfax County's AAP program is far and away the best designed GT program we have ever encountered, especially with its attempt to reach as many kids as possible through everything from Level 3 pull outs to Level 4 centers through TJ.

If there were any area I would improve upon, it would be to have a hard cut off for center admittance (2 deviations from norm) and perhaps an elimination of the current locwl level IV model.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's because there are so many parents who feel this way and who are tired of the AAP status quo. A lot of us are beginning to wake up to what a poorly designed system AAP is.

What's a well-designed G&T system?

NP. The key is to build up GE at the same time that AAP is decreased in size. GE curriculum might address up through Superior intellect. Very Superior and Profound would be in a separate group. *I know I'm blending different IQ rankings, but I'm just generalizing here.

Current benchmark score (132 or thereabouts) is basically two standard deviations above the [national] mean. That's a lot. You want it to be three or more?

I meant a real-world example of a well-run gifted program.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's because there are so many parents who feel this way and who are tired of the AAP status quo. A lot of us are beginning to wake up to what a poorly designed system AAP is.

What's a well-designed G&T system?

NP. The key is to build up GE at the same time that AAP is decreased in size. GE curriculum might address up through Superior intellect. Very Superior and Profound would be in a separate group. *I know I'm blending different IQ rankings, but I'm just generalizing here.